Mashrabaمشربة

The commentators side by side

One passage at a time. Each column is a commentator; each row gathers the comments on the same words, so readings and emphases can be compared.

فَصُّ حِكْمَةٍ حَقِّيَّةٍ فِي كَلِمَةٍ إِسْحَاقِيَّةٍ

←→Read ¶3 in the text

3 · 64 words · shading: how many commentators stop on each word

اعْلَمْ أَيَّدَنَا اللَّهُ وَإِيَّاكَ أَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الخَلِيلَ قَالَ لِابْنِهِ إِنِّىٓ أَرَىٰ فِى ٱلْمَنَامِ أَنِّىٓ أَذْبَحُكَ وَالمَنَامُ حَضْرَةُ الخَيَالِ فَلَمْ يُعَبِّرْهَا وَكَانَ كَبْشٌ ظَهَرَ فِي صُورَةِ ابْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ فِي الْمَنَامِ فَصَدَّقَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ الرُّؤْيَا فَفَدَاهُ رَبُّهُ مِنْ وَهْمِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بِالذَّبْحِ العَظِيمِ الَّذِي هُوَ تَعْبِيرُ رُؤْيَاهُ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَهُوَ لَا يَشْعُرُ فَالتَّجَلِّي الصُّورِيُّ فِي حَضْرَةِ الخَيَالِ مُحْتَاجٌ إِلَى عِلْمٍ آخَرَ بِهِ يُدْرَكُ مَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ بِتِلْكَ الصُّورَةِ

Know—may God strengthen us and you—that Abraham the Intimate Friend said to his son: "I see in sleep that I am sacrificing you" [Q 37:102]. Sleep is the presence of imagination, yet he did not interpret it. It was a ram that had become manifest in the form of Abraham's son in sleep, but Abraham took the vision as literally true. So his Lord ransomed him from Abraham's imagination (wahm) with the tremendous sacrifice, which is the interpretation of his vision with God, while he [Abraham] was not aware [of it]. Thus the formal self-disclosure in the presence of imagination is in need of another knowledge through which is perceived what God intended by that form.

On the whole passage · 2 of 7

al-Tilimsānī

﴿(الصافات: 102) . فالمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبرها و كان كبشا ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا، ففداه ربه من وهم إبراهيم بالذبح العظيم الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله تعالى وهو لا يشعر. فالتجلي الصوري في حضرة الخيال محتاج إلى علم آخر يدرك به ما أراد الله تعالى بتلك الصورة. ألا ترى كيف قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لأبي بكر في تعبير الرؤيا: «أصبت بعضا وأخطأت بعضا» فسأله أبو بكر أن يعرفه ما أصاب فيه وما أخطأ فلم يفعل. وقال الله تعالى لإبراهيم عليه السلام حين ناداه: «أن يا إبراهيم قد صدقت الرؤيا» وما قال له صدقت في الرؤيا أنه ابنك: لأنه ما عبرها، بل أخذ بظاهر ما رأى، والرؤيا تطلب التعبير. ولذلك قال العزيز﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

إن كنتم للرءيا تعبرون

For the dream-vision belongs to the Presence of Imagination, and he (Ibrāhīm) did not interpret it; it was a ram that appeared in the form of Ibrāhīm's son in the dream. So Ibrāhīm confirmed the truth of the vision, and his Lord ransomed him from Ibrāhīm's supposition with the great sacrifice, which was the [true] interpretation of his vision with God, Exalted is He, while he himself was unaware of it. For the formal self-disclosure (tajallī) occurring in the Presence of Imagination requires another knowledge by which one perceives what God, Exalted is He, intended by that form. Do you not see how the Messenger of God, God bless him and give him peace, said to Abū Bakr concerning the interpretation of a vision: "You got part of it right and part of it wrong"? So Abū Bakr asked him to tell him what he had gotten right and what he had gotten wrong, but he did not do so. And God, Exalted is He, said to Ibrāhīm, peace be upon him, when He called out to him: "O Ibrāhīm, you have confirmed the vision as true" — He did not say to him "you were correct that the vision meant it was your son," because he had not [properly] interpreted it, but rather had taken the manifest (ẓāhir) sense of what he saw, whereas the dream-vision demands interpretation. And it is for this reason that the Mighty One (al-ʿAzīz) said: "If you are able to interpret visions."

Bālī Zāde

﴿اعلم أيدنا الله وإياك أن إبراهيم الخليل عليه السلام قال لابنه: «إني أرى في المنام أني أذبحك» والمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبرها. وكان كبش ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا، ففداه ربه من وهم إبراهيم بالذبح العظيم الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله تعالى وهو لا يشعر. فالتجلي الصوري في حضرة الخيال محتاج إلى علم آخر يدرك به ما أراد الله تعالى بتلك الصورة.﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه : (اعلم أيدنا الله وإياكم أن إبراهيم عليه السلام قال لابنه وإن أرين في الساير ان أذبلك [الصافات: 102] والمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبرها) من العبور أو من التعبير فحمل ما رآه على ظاهره كما هو عادة الأنبياء فظن أن الحق أمره ذبح ابنه فباشر الذبح إطاعة لأمر ربه . (وكان) ما رآه

The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said: (Know—may God assist us and you—that Abraham, peace be upon him, said to his son: "I see in a dream that I am slaughtering you" [al-Ṣāffāt: 102], and the dream is the presence of imagination, yet he did not interpret it [lam yuʿabbirhā])—from ʿubūr (passing through) or from taʿbīr (interpretation)—so he took what he saw at its apparent sense, as is the habit of the prophets, and so supposed that the Real had commanded him to slaughter his son, and he proceeded with the slaughter in obedience to his Lord's command. (And there was) what he saw

al-Qāshānī

﴿اعلم أيدنا الله وإياك أن إبراهيم الخليل عليه الصلاة والسلام قال لابنه : " إِنِّي أَرى في الْمَنامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ " . والمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبرها ، وكان كبش ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام ، فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

أي لم يعبرها لما تعود به من الأخذ عن عالم المثال . فلما رقاه الله تعالى عن عالم المثال ليجعل قلبه محل الاستواء الرحماني أخذ خياله المعنى من قلبه المجرد ، وتصرفت القوة المتصرفة في تصويره فصورت معنى الكبش بصورة إسحاق عليه السلام لما ذكر من كونه الأصل ، فلم يعبرها وصدقها في أن ذلك إسحاق ، وكان ذلك عند الله الذبح العظيم. فلم يعط إبراهيم الحضرة حقها بالتعبير

That is, he did not interpret it, due to his habituation to taking from the World of Imaginal Forms (ʿālam al-mithāl). So when God Most High raised him above the World of Imaginal Forms, to make his heart the locus of the Merciful Settling (al-istiwāʾ al-raḥmānī), his imaginal faculty took the meaning from his disengaged heart, and the formative faculty acted in giving it form, so it gave the meaning of the ram the form of Isaac, peace be upon him, because of what was mentioned of his being the root/origin. So Abraham did not interpret it, and he confirmed it as being Isaac, while with God it was the great sacrifice (al-dhabḥ al-ʿaẓīm). Thus Abraham did not give the presence (ḥaḍra) its due through interpretation

al-Qayṣarī

﴿اعلم، أيدنا الله وإياك، أن إبراهيم الخليل، عليه السلام، قال لابنه: "إني أرى في المنام أنى أذبحك" والمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبرها﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

أي، المنام حضرة المثال المقيد المسمى بالخيال. فالمرئي فيها قد يكون مطابقا لما يقع في الظاهر، وقد لا يكون كذلك، بل يدرك النفس معنى من المعاني الغيبية من الطريق الذي لا واسطة بينها وبين الحق، أو من المعاني المنتقشة في الأرواح العالية، فتلبس له صورة مثالية مناسبة مما في حضرة خياله من الصور. فينبغي أن يعبر، ليعلم المراد من الصور المرئية. وإبراهيم، عليه السلام، لم يعبرها، لأن الأنبياء والكمل أكثر ما يشاهدون الأمور في العالم المثالي المطلق. وكل ما يرى فيه لا بد أن يكون حقا مطابقا للواقع، فظن أنه، عليه السلام، شاهد فيه، فلم يعبرها، أو ظن أن الحقأمره بذلك، إذ كثير من الأنبياء يوحون في مناماتهم. فصدق منامه. قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

That is, the dream is the presence of restricted imagery (al-mithāl al-muqayyad) called imagination (khayāl). What is seen therein may correspond to what occurs in the outward world, or it may not be so; rather, the soul perceives a meaning from among the unseen meanings by a path with no intermediary between it and the Real, or from the meanings imprinted upon the exalted spirits, and it [that meaning] clothes itself for him in a suitable imaginal form from what is in the presence of his imagination, of forms. So it ought to be interpreted, that the intent of the seen forms may be known. And Abraham (peace be upon him) did not interpret it, because the prophets and the perfect ones witness matters, for the most part, in the absolute imaginal world (al-ʿālam al-mithālī al-muṭlaq), and everything seen therein must necessarily be true, corresponding to actuality. So he supposed, peace be upon him, that he had witnessed [the Real] in it, and so did not interpret it; or he supposed that the Real had commanded him with that, since many prophets are given revelation in their dreams. So he confirmed his dream as true. The Shaykh (God be pleased with him) said:

Ibn Turka

﴿واعلم - أيّدنا الله وإيّاك﴾

بميامن الوراثة الختميّة وقرابتها ، تأييدا يتبيّن به دقائق المراد من الكلام على عرف التخاطب الذي مع الكمّل

with the blessings of the Seal-inheritance (al-wirātha al-khātamiyya) and its kinship, a support by which the subtleties of what is intended by the discourse become clear, according to the customary mode of address used with the perfect ones (al-kummal)

Jāmī

﴿اعلم أيدنا الله وإياك﴾

لإدراك الحقائق على ما هي عليه

to grasp the realities (ḥaqāʾiq) as they truly are

Bālī Zāde

﴿اعلم أيدنا الله وإياك أن إبراهيم الخليل عليه الصلاة والسلام قال لابنه : " إِنِّي أَرى في الْمَنامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ " . والمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبرها ، وكان كبش ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام ، فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

(فلم يعبرها ) فحمل ما رآه على ظاهره كما هو عادة الأنبياء ، فظن أن الحق أمر بذبح ابنه فباشر لذبح إطاعة لأمر ربه

("Yet he did not interpret it") — he carried what he saw upon its outward sense (ẓāhir), as is the custom of the prophets; so he supposed that the Real had commanded the slaughter of his son, and he proceeded to the slaughter in obedience to his Lord's command.

Bālī Zāde's gloss, printed inside al-Qāshānī's commentary in the ibnalarabi.com text (line 3479); moved here

Ibn Turka

﴿أنّ إبراهيم الخليل عليه السّلام قال لابنه : " إِنِّي أَرى في الْمَنامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ " [ 37 / 102 ] والمنام حضرة الخيال﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

وهي مجبولة على محاكاة ما في أحد الجانبين المحاذيين لها . أعني الشهادة والغيب بتمثّل الصور المناسبة له فيها ، مناسبة الأشباه أو الأضداد ، فلا بد من الانتقال والعبور من الصور المثاليّة الخياليّة برابطة تلك المناسبة والشبه إلى ما هو في الواقع من الصور العينيّة فلا بد من التعبير وأمّا إبراهيم

—and the dream is the presence of imagination (ḥaḍrat al-khayāl)] which is constituted so as to represent what lies in one of the two sides facing it—I mean the visible [world] (al-shahāda) and the unseen (al-ghayb)—through the manifestation therein of forms appropriate to it, an appropriateness either of resemblance or of opposition. Hence there must be a transition and a crossing-over from the imaginal, imaginative forms, by the bond of that correspondence and resemblance, to what actually exists among the concrete particular forms (al-ṣuwar al-ʿayniyya); hence interpretation (taʿbīr) is necessary. As for Abraham

Jāmī

﴿أن إبراهيم الخليل﴾

على نبينا وعليه الصلاة والسلام قال لابنه إسحاق علیه السلام

"]—peace and blessings be upon our Prophet and upon him—said to his son Isaac, peace be upon him

al-Jandī

﴿إِنِّي أَرى في الْمَنامِ أَنِّي أَذْبَحُكَ﴾

والمنام حضرة الخيال فلم يعبّره ، وكان كبشا ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام ، فصدّق إبراهيم الرؤيا ، ففداه ربّه من وهم إبراهيم بالذبح العظيم الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله وهو لا يشعر ، فالتجلَّي الصوري في حضرة الخيال يحتاج إلى علم آخر به يدرك ما أراد الله بتلك الصورة . ألا ترى كيف قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لأبي بكر في تعبيره الرؤيا : « أصبت بعضا وأخطأت بعضا » . فسأله أبو بكر أن يعرّفه ما أصاب فيه وما أخطأ ، فلم يفعل صلى الله عليه وسلم . قال العبد : حضرة المثال وحضرة الخيال حضرة تجسّد المعاني والحقائق والأرواح والأنفس وحقائق الصور والأشكال والهيئات الاجتماعية ، فمن رأى صورة أو شكلا أو هيئة ولم يعبّرها ولم يؤولها إلى ما يؤول إليه أمر ذلك الشكل أو الصورة والهيئة التي رأى في الرؤيا ، فقد صدّق الرؤيا . ومن عبّرها صدق في الرؤيا حيث أعطى الحضرة حقّها فعبّرها ، فلو عبّر إبراهيم رؤياه صدق أنّ الذبح هو الكبش ولم يكذب الذبح الواقع بابنه ، ولكن كان كبشا ظهر في صورة ابنه ، فصدّقها ، فأراد إيقاع الذبح بابنه فما صدق ، أي لم يقع ، وسنذكر سبب ذلك . قال رضي الله عنه : وقال الله لإبراهيم حين ناداه : " أَنْ يا إِبْراهِيمُ . قَدْ صَدَّقْتَ الرُّؤْيا ". وما قال له : قد صدقت في الرؤيا أنّه ابنك ، لأنّه ما عبّرها ، بل أخذ بظاهر ما رأى ، والرؤيا تطلب التعبير . يعني رضي الله عنه : صدّقت تجسّد الذبح بصورة ابنك ، وليس كذلك ، فإنّ الرؤيا تطلب التعبير والتفسير . قال رضي الله عنه : ولذلك قال العزيز

The dream-vision (al-manām) is the presence of imagination (ḥaḍrat al-khayāl), and he did not interpret it. It was a ram that appeared in the form of Ibrāhīm's son in the dream, and Ibrāhīm held the vision to be true (ṣaddaqa al-ruʾyā), so his Lord ransomed him from Ibrāhīm's supposition (wahm) of the great slaughter which was the [proper] interpretation of his vision with God, while he was unaware. For the formal self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-ṣūrī) in the presence of imagination requires another knowledge by which one grasps what God intended by that form. Do you not see how the Messenger of God (may God bless him and grant him peace) said to Abū Bakr, regarding his interpretation of a vision: "You got part of it right and part of it wrong"? Abū Bakr asked him to tell him what he had gotten right and what wrong, but the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) did not do so. The servant [i.e., the author] says: the presence of the exemplar (al-mithāl) and the presence of imagination (al-khayāl) is the presence in which meanings, realities, spirits, souls, and the realities of forms, shapes, and collective configurations become embodied. So whoever sees a form or shape or configuration and does not interpret it, nor refer it back to what that shape or form or configuration [in the vision] ultimately signifies, has held the vision to be [literally] true (ṣaddaqa al-ruʾyā). And whoever interprets it has been truthful (ṣadaqa) regarding the vision, in that he gave the presence its due by interpreting it. Had Ibrāhīm interpreted his vision, he would have been truthful that the slaughter was the ram, and the slaughter that actually befell his son would not have belied it; rather, it was a ram that appeared in the form of his son, and he held it to be [literally] true. He intended to carry out the slaughter upon his son, but it did not turn out to be true, i.e., it did not occur—and we shall mention the reason for this. He (may God be pleased with him) said: and God said to Ibrāhīm when He called out to him: "O Ibrāhīm, you have held the vision to be true (ṣaddaqta al-ruʾyā)." He did not say to him: "You were truthful in the vision that it was your son," because he had not interpreted it, but had taken the apparent sense of what he saw, whereas the vision calls for interpretation. He (may God be pleased with him) means: you held to be [literally] true the embodiment of the slaughter in the form of your son, but it was not so, for the vision calls for interpretation (taʿbīr) and exegesis (tafsīr). He (may God be pleased with him) said: and that is why the Mighty One [Joseph] said

Jāmī

﴿إني أرى في المنام أني أذبحك﴾

[الصافات : 102]

[al-Ṣāffāt 37:102]

﴿إني أرى في المنام أني أذبحك﴾

أي رأيت أني مشتغل بأفعال الذبح ولا يلزم منه تمامه، وقد وقع منه في اليقظة ما رآه في المنام ووطن هو وابنه للانقياد لذتك. فلما تم العزم ووجد مقدمات الذبح حصل المقصود من الابتلاء فتداركه الله برحمته بإعطاء الذبح ليذبح فداء له فوقع ما رآه بعينه ، ولم تكن رؤياه وهما وخيالا حاشا منصب الخلة عن مثل هذا الخطأ والله ولي التوفيق. والعجب من هذا الفاضل بل من كل معترض علي الشيخ رضي الله عنه في مثل هذا الكتاب، فإن ما ذكره الشيخ من مفتتح الكتاب من مبشرة أريها . وإن ما أورده في هذا الكتاب ما حده له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من غير زيادة ولا نقصان إن كان مسلما عنده . فلا مجال للاعتراض فإن ذلك يعود إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وإن لم يكن مسلما عنده بل أعتقد أن ذلك افتراء وكذب أو سهو وخطأ . فالاعتراض عليه ذاك لا هذا وكيف لا يسلم ذلك من اطلع على أحواله ومقاماته و مكاشفاته مما أدرجه في هذا الكتاب وسائر مصنفاته . فالتجلي الصوري في حضرة الخيال يحتاج إلى علم آخر يدرك به ما أراد الله بتلك الصورة

i.e., "I see that I am engaged in the acts of slaughtering," without this necessarily implying its completion. And indeed what he saw in the dream occurred in waking reality, and he and his son resolved upon compliance with that. So when the resolve was completed and the preliminaries of the slaughter were found [accomplished], the purpose of the trial (ibtilāʾ) was achieved, and God, by His mercy, intervened by granting [him] the sacrifice to be slaughtered as a ransom for him; so what he saw occurred exactly as he saw it, and his vision was not a mere supposition or imagination—far be the station of the Friendship [of God] (al-khulla) from such an error! And God is the Guardian of success. It is astonishing regarding this excellent [critic], indeed regarding every objector to the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, in a book such as this: that what the Shaykh mentions in the opening of the book is a glad tiding he was shown [by the Prophet], and what he set forth in this book is nothing but what the Messenger of God, may God's blessings and peace be upon him, dictated to him—without addition or subtraction—if this is accepted as true by [the objector]. Then there is no room for objection, for that [objection] would then revert to the Prophet, may God's blessings and peace be upon him. And if he does not accept this as true, but rather believes it to be fabrication and falsehood, or inadvertence and error, then the objection falls upon that [claim], not upon this [text of the Shaykh]. And how could this not be accepted by one who is acquainted with his [the Shaykh's] states, stations, and unveilings (mukāshafāt), as recorded in this book and his other works? For the formal self-disclosure (al-tajallī al-ṣūrī) in the presence of imagination requires another science by which one may grasp what God intended by that form.

Bālī Zāde

﴿أني أرى في المنام أني أذبحك﴾

ولو لم ير صدور هذا الفعل منه في المنام لما هم وقصد القطع حتى غضب ورمى السكين فإنما يكون إبراهيم عليه السلام صادقا في الرؤيا لو وقع هذا الفعل بعينه عنه في الحس فلم يقع . إذ ما يصدر عن الأنبياء ما لا يرضي الله تعالی عنه ولا يتعلق إدارته خصوصا من الكبائر فلم يصدق قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

—and had he not seen this act proceeding from himself in the dream, he would not have intended and set about the cutting until he was told to stop and threw down the knife. For Abraham, peace be upon him, would only be "true" in the vision if this very act had occurred from him in the sensory realm exactly as seen—but it did not occur. For nothing proceeds from the prophets that God does not approve of, nor does His decree pertain to it, especially not from among grave sins; so he was not "true" [in that sense]. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said:

Words 16–18 · 1 of 7

وَالمَنَامُ حَضْرَةُ الخَيَالِ

Only Jāmī comments here.

Jāmī

﴿والمنام حضرة الخيال﴾

المقيد الذي من شأنه أن تعبر عن الصورة الممثلة فيها إلى المعاني المقصودة منه

the bound/delimited [imagination] (al-muqayyad), whose function is that the represented form within it be interpreted (tuʿabbar) toward the meanings intended by it

Ibn Turka

﴿فلم يعبّرها ،وكان كبش ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام﴾

ووجه المناسبة هاهنا هو أنّ إبراهيم أوّل من تحقّق بالحضرة الجمعيّة الوجوديّة ، التي هي ظاهر القابليّة الأولى الذاتيّة ، كما أنّ الكبش صورة تلك القابليّة التي ظهرت في المرتبة الحيوانيّة - ولذلك تراه في مصدريّة الأفعال الاختياريّة هو الغاية في القبول إذعانا واستسلاما . ثمّ لمّا كان الابن صورة سرّ الأب، على ما ورد : « الولد سرّ أبيه » . تصوّر الكبش في الحسّ المشترك عند ظهوره من طرف الغيب والبطون للخيال بصورة ابن إبراهيم ، لقوّة المناسبة المذكورة وكمال الاستيناس به

The aspect of correspondence here is that Abraham was the first to be realized through the all-comprehensive existential presence (al-ḥaḍra al-jamʿiyya al-wujūdiyya), which is the manifest aspect of the primordial essential receptivity (al-qābiliyya al-ūlā al-dhātiyya), just as the ram is the form of that receptivity as it appeared at the animal level—and that is why you find it, as a source of voluntary acts, to be the very extreme of acceptance, submission, and surrender. Then, since the son is the form of the father's secret (sirr), according to what has been transmitted—"The child is the secret of his father"—the ram was represented in the common sense (al-ḥiss al-mushtarak), when it emerged from the side of the unseen and the hidden interior into the imagination, in the form of Abraham's son, owing to the strength of the aforementioned correspondence and the perfection of familiarity with it

Jāmī

﴿فلم يعبرها﴾

إبراهيم عليه السلام، أي لم يتجاوزها إلى المقصود من الصور المرئية فيها لما تعود به من الأخذ عن عالم المثال المضئق، وكلما أخذ منه لا بد أن يكون حقا مطابقة للواقع من غير تعبير . فلما شاهد عليه السلام صورة ذبح ابنه فيه ظن أنه مأمور به من غير تعبير و تأويل فتصدى له

—Abraham, peace be upon him, i.e., he did not go beyond it to [grasp] what was intended by the forms seen within it, due to his habituation to receiving [revelation] from the constricted World of Imagination (ʿālam al-mithāl); and whatever he received from it was necessarily true, corresponding to actual reality without need of interpretation. So when he, peace be upon him, witnessed in it the form of the slaughter of his son, he supposed that he was commanded to do it literally, without interpretation or taʾwīl, and so he undertook it

al-Qayṣarī

﴿وكان كبش ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام، فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا.﴾

أي، الكبش المفدى به، هو الذي كان مراد الله في نفس الأمر، فظهر في صورة إسحاق، لمناسبة واقعة بينهما. وهي إسلامه لوجه الله وانقياده لأحكامه. فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا بأن قصد ذبح ابنه

That is, the ram with which the ransom was made is what was, in reality, the object of God's intent; so it appeared in the form of Isaac, on account of a correspondence occurring between the two — namely, his [Isaac's] submission (islām) to the Face of God and his compliance with His decrees. So Abraham confirmed the vision as true in that he intended to sacrifice his son.

Jāmī

﴿وكان كبش ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم في المنام﴾

لمناسبة واقعة بينهما وهي الاستسلام والانقياد فكان مراد الله سبحانه به الكبش لابن إبراهيم

on account of a correspondence (munāsaba) obtaining between the two [realities], namely submission (istislām) and compliance (inqiyād); so God, Glory be to Him, intended by it the ram [to stand] for the son of Abraham

Bālī Zāde

﴿كبشا ظهر في صورة ابن إبراهيم عليه السلام في المنام﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

لمناسبة بينهما في الانقياد والتسليم

due to a correspondence between them in submission and surrender

Ibn Turka

﴿فصدّق إبراهيم الرؤيا﴾

أي أخذ تلك الصورة المرئيّة صادقة مطابقة لما في الأمر نفسه مما وجب عليه. سرّ رؤيا إبراهيم عليه السّلام وهاهنا تلويح حكميّ له كثير دخل في تحقيقه، ومنه يعلم لميّة تصديقه وما يترتّب عليه من التفدية : وهو أنّ البعد بين المتقابلين - الذين بهما يتقوّم أمر التعاكس والتماثل - كلَّما كان أكثر ، كانت مطابقة العكس لأصله أشدّ وذلك لأنّ المشاركة - ولو في صفة من الصفات أو جهة من الجهات - تستلزم عدم ظهور العكس بكماله ، لتخلَّفه عن الأصل في تلك الصفة ، وانحرافه عنه بها ، ولذلك ترى المرايا ما ترى الصورة ما لم تكن في الجهة التي في غاية البعد - وهي القطر - وإذا انحرف عنها ما أرت الصورة كما هي ومن هاهنا أيضا ترى عكس العكس عين الأصل ، لأنّه أنهى ما يتباعد به عن الأصل . ثمّ إنّ إبراهيم لما وصل من القرب إلى ما وصل، ما تمكَّنت مرآة خياله عن إراءة العكس كاملا، لزوال البعد والقطريّة فيه، وكمال القرب والخلَّة، وإذ قد كان ميلانه إلى طرف علوّ قربه الخلَّية، جاوز في أمر القربان أيضا إلى ما هو أعلى من فداء المال وذبح ذوي الحياة منه حتّى توهّم ذبح الابن وفدائه - وهو أوثق العلائق رابطة وأحكمها وثاقا - ولذلك ما اختصّت به ذوو العقول فقط، بل عمّت الحيوانات العجم تلك العلاقة . فظهر أنّ وثاقة علاقة الابن النسبيّ وهميّة فلذلك لما رأى إبراهيم في رؤياه الذبح العظيم صوّر الوهم ذلك العظيم بابنه إذ ليس عنده أعظم منه

that is, he took that seen form as true and as corresponding to what was actually required of him. The Secret of Abraham's Vision, peace be upon him. And here there is a wise intimation (talwīḥ ḥikamī) that bears greatly upon its realization, and from it one knows the reason for his confirming it as true and what follows from this by way of ransom: namely, that the greater the distance between two counterparts—by which the matter of reflection (taʿākus) and resemblance (tamāthul) is constituted—the more exact is the correspondence of the reflection to its original. This is because any sharing [of a trait]—even in a single attribute or respect—entails that the reflection does not appear in its full perfection, since it then falls short of the original in that attribute and deviates from it thereby. That is why mirrors do not show the form [truly] except when it is in the direction of greatest distance—namely, the diameter (quṭr)—and if it deviates from that direction, they do not show the form as it [really] is. From this it is also seen that the reflection of a reflection is identical with the original, since it has reached the furthest point of distance from the original. Then, when Abraham attained the degree of nearness that he attained, the mirror of his imagination was no longer able to show the reflection in its completeness, owing to the disappearance of distance and diametrical opposition within it, and the perfection of nearness and intimate friendship (khulla). And since his inclination was toward the side of the loftiness proper to his intimate nearness, he went, in the matter of the offering (qurbān), beyond even the ransom of wealth and the sacrifice of living things, to the point of imagining the sacrifice and ransom of his son—the firmest and most binding of relationships in attachment—and that is why this bond is not restricted to those possessed of reason, but extends even to dumb animals. Thus it became clear that the firmness of the relational bond of sonship (al-ibn al-nisbī) is a matter of estimation (wahmī). Hence, when Abraham saw in his vision the great act of sacrifice, estimation (al-wahm) pictured that great thing in the form of his son, since in his view there was nothing greater than him

Jāmī

﴿فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا﴾

أي حقق الصورة المرئية وجعلها صادقة مطابقة للصورة الحسية الخارجية بالإقدام على الذبح و التعرض لمقدماته. (ففداه) ، أي ابن إبراهيم (ربه) لينقذه من الذبح. وذكر الفداء ههنا إنما هو من جهة وهم إبراهيم عليه السلام وظنه وإلا لم يكن فداء حقيقة

i.e., he actualized the seen form and rendered it true, corresponding to the external sensory form, by proceeding to the slaughter and exposing himself to its preliminaries. ("So He ransomed him")—i.e., the son of Abraham—("his Lord") in order to save him from the slaughter. The mention of the ransom here pertains only to Abraham's supposition and conjecture, peace be upon him; otherwise it would not truly be a ransom

Bālī Zāde

﴿فصدق إبراهيم الرؤيا﴾

بمباشرة الذبح (ففداه) عن ابنه

by proceeding with the slaughter, (so he ransomed him) in place of his son

al-Qāshānī

﴿ففداه ربه من وهم إبراهيم بالذبح العظيم الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله وهو لا يشعر ، فالتجلى الصوري في حضرة الخيال محتاج إلى علم آخر ، يدرك به ما أراد الله بتلك الصورة﴾

وهو علم التعبير . قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

namely the science of dream-interpretation (ʿilm al-taʿbīr). The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said:

al-Qayṣarī

﴿ففداه ربه من وهم إبراهيم﴾

أي، من جهة وهمه

That is, from the aspect of his supposition.

Ibn Turka

﴿ففداه ربّه من وهم إبراهيم بالذبح العظيم ، الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله - وهو لا يشعر﴾

لغلبة أمر القربة فيه واستيلاء سلطان الخلَّية عليه. تعبير ما في حضرة الخيال

owing to the predominance of the matter of nearness (qurba) within him and the overpowering dominion of intimate friendship (khulla) over him. The Interpretation of What Is in the Presence of Imagination

Bālī Zāde

﴿ربه من وهم إبراهيم عليه السلام﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

من أنه وهم إبراهيم عليه السلام أن ما رآه ابنه وإلا لا نداء في الحقيقة

meaning that it was Abraham's supposition, peace be upon him, that what he saw was his son—otherwise there would be no call (nidāʾ) in reality

Words 35–37 · 1 of 7

مِنْ وَهْمِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ

Only al-Qayṣarī comments here.

al-Qayṣarī

﴿من وهم إبراهيم﴾

عليه السلام. ولأنه توهم أن المرئي "الحقيقة" لا ينبغي أن يعبر، فقصد ذبح ابنه

peace be upon him. And because he imagined that the thing seen - "the Reality" - should not be disregarded, he intended to slaughter his son

﴿من وهم إبراهيم﴾

قد يكون مراد المصنف من قوله : (من وهم إبراهيم) أن إطلاق الفداء على الكبش كان بحسب وهم إبراهيم، عليه السلام، فإنه توهم أنه مأمور بذبح ابنه مع أنه كان مأمورا بذبح الكبش، فذبح الكبش لم يكن فداء .وامر الظاهر شريعة يقتضى ذبح الكبش، ولكن شدة محبة إبراهيم وعشقه وهم عن الجمع بالظاهر شريعة والباطن حقيقة، فأراد ذبح الابن

It may be that the author's intent in his statement ("from the misapprehension of Abraham") is that the application of "ransom" (fidāʾ) to the ram was according to the misapprehension of Abraham, peace be upon him. For he imagined that he was commanded to slaughter his son, whereas he was actually commanded to slaughter the ram; so the slaughtering of the ram was not a ransom. The manifest command (al-ẓāhir), which is the Sacred Law (sharīʿa), requires the slaughtering of the ram, but the intensity of Abraham's love and passionate devotion led him to misapprehend the combination of the manifest, which is Sacred Law, and the nonmanifest, which is Reality (ḥaqīqa); so he intended to slaughter his son

Note by the modern compiler (al-jāmiʿ) of the ibnalarabi.com text, not by al-Qayṣarī

al-Qayṣarī

﴿بالذبح العظيم الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله، وهو لا يشعر﴾

أي أظهر ربهما كان المراد عنده، وهو الذبح العظيم الذي صوره خياله بمشاركة الوهم بصورة إسحاق، وإبراهيم لا يشعر أن المراد ما هو، لسبق ذهنه إلى ما اعتاده من الرؤية في العالم المثالي. ولما كان للوهم مدخل عظيم في كل ما يرى في المنام – إذ هو السلطان في إدراك المعاني الجزئية. قال

That is, their [father's and son's] Lord manifested what was actually intended, which is the mighty sacrifice that his imagination, in partnership with the faculty of wahm, pictured in the form of Isaac; and Abraham was unaware of what the real intent was, due to his mind's precedence toward what he was accustomed to seeing in the imaginal world. And since wahm (illusory supposition) has a great share in everything seen in a dream — being indeed the sovereign faculty in perceiving particular meanings — he said:

Jāmī

﴿بالذبح العظيم الذي هو تعبير رؤياه عند الله وهو﴾

أي إبراهيم عليه السلام

interpretation of his vision with God, while he"]—i.e., Abraham, peace be upon him—

Bālī Zāde

﴿بالذبح العظيم الذي هو﴾

أي الذبح العظيم

that is, the tremendous sacrifice

Words 42–46 · 1 of 7

تَعْبِيرُ رُؤْيَاهُ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَهُوَ

Only Bālī Zāde comments here.

Bālī Zāde

﴿تعبير رؤياه عند الله وهو﴾

أي إبراهيم عليه السلام

that is, Abraham, peace be upon him

Words 47–48 · 2 of 7

لَا يَشْعُرُ

Jāmī

﴿لا يشعر﴾

بذلك التعبير لما أخفاء الله سبحانه عليه لحكمة تقتضية . والتفصيل في هذا المقام على ما يفهم من كلام الشيخ رضي الله عنه وشارحي كلامه. أن إبراهيم الخليل صلوات الله عليه كان قبل هذا المقام معودا بالأخذ عن عالم المثال الذي من شأنه أن تقلا بق الصور المرنية فيه الصور الظاهرة في الحس من غير اختلال، فلا حاجة فيه الى التعبير. فلما تحقق الغناء في الله بالكلية واقتضى ذلك الفناء في الله عن هذا المشهد بأن يشاهد الأمور في مراتب هي أعلى مراتب المثال أو في نفسه وقلبه من الوجه الخاص من غير توسط أمر آخر، أراد الله سبحانه أن يظهر في الحس صورة ليحققه بالغناء في ذبح الكبش وأن يرقيه عن هذا المشهد فأراه في المنام أن يذبح الكبش . ولكن في صورة ذبح ابنه وستر عليه المقصود منه، وأوقع في وهمه أن ابنه هو المقصود بعينه بناء على ما اعتاده من الأخذ عن عالم المثال. فاعتقد صدق ما وقع في وهمه من ذبح ابنه فتصدى له وانقاد له ابنه، فظهر سر كمان استسلامهما وانقيادهما الله تعالى. فجعل سبحانه الذبح العظيم فداء لابنه وأنقذه من الذبح، وما كان مراد الله من منامه وهو ذبح الكبش لنكون صورة حسية تتحقق إبراهيم بالفناء فيه وحصل له الترفي عن مشهده المعتاد، فإن الصورة المرنية لم تكن من عالم المثال بل فاض هذا المعنى عليه من مرتبة أخرى فوق عالم المثاني ، وانبعث من قلبه و صورته متخيلة بتلك الصورة، وعلم ذلك الترقي أيضا حيث وقع منه ذبح الكبش لا ذبح ابنه . ولا يخفى على المنصف أن ذلك بيان لحسن تربية الله سبحانه إبراهيم الخليل عليه السلام وليس فيه شائبة سوء أدب من الشيخ رضي الله عنه بالنسبة إلى إبراهيم عليه السلام، وكتب بعض من اشتهر بالفضل بخطه على الهامش في هذا المقام. هذا كلام زخرفة الشيخ ولا أراه حقا بل كنه صادر عن سوء أدب أحسن محامله أن يقال أنه صدر عنه في حال كونه مغلوبا . والحق في ذلك والله أعلم أن إبراهيم عليه السلام رأى في المنام أنه مباشر للذبح بمعنى أنه أضجع ابنه وأخذ المدية وأمرها على حلقومه ليقطعه ولكن لم يحصل القطع وهذا هو المراد بقوله

of that [true] interpretation, since God, Glory be to Him, concealed it from him for a wisdom that required it. The detailed explanation on this point, as understood from the words of the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, and his commentators, is that Abraham the Friend, God's blessings upon him, before this station, was accustomed to receiving [revelation] from the World of Imagination, whose function is that the seen forms within it correspond exactly to the forms manifest in sense-perception without any discrepancy, so there was no need in it for interpretation. But when annihilation (fanāʾ) in God was fully actualized for him, and that annihilation required that he be raised above this [customary] witnessing—so that he would witness matters in ranks higher than the rank of imagination, or within himself and his heart, from a special aspect, without the mediation of anything else—God, Glory be to Him, willed to manifest in sense-perception a form by which He would actualize for him [the reality of] annihilation in the slaughter of the ram, and to elevate him above this [customary] witnessing. So He showed him in the dream that he should slaughter the ram, but in the form of the slaughter of his son, concealing from him the [true] intended meaning, and casting into his supposition that his son was indeed the one specifically intended, based on his habituation to receiving [revelation] from the World of Imagination. So he believed as true what occurred in his supposition—namely the slaughter of his son—and he undertook it, and his son submitted to him in compliance; thus there was manifested the secret of the perfection of their submission and compliance to God Most High. So God, Glory be to Him, made the Mighty Sacrifice a ransom for his son and saved him from the slaughter. And what God intended by his dream was [in reality] the slaughter of the ram, so that there might be a sensory form through which Abraham's actualization of annihilation in it would occur, and he would attain elevation above his customary [mode of] witnessing. For the seen form was not [really] from the World of Imagination; rather, this meaning overflowed (fāḍa) upon him from another rank above the World of Imagination, and it was projected from his heart, his form being imagined in that [sensory] shape; and he also came to know of that elevation when what occurred from him was the slaughter of the ram, not the slaughter of his son. It is not hidden from the fair-minded that this is an explanation of the excellence of God's upbringing (tarbiya), Glory be to Him, of Abraham the Friend, peace be upon him, and that there is no tinge of impropriety in it on the part of the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, with respect to Abraham, peace be upon him. Someone known for excellence wrote in his own hand in the margin at this point: "This is embellished speech (zukhrufa) of the Shaykh, and I do not consider it true; rather, its essence proceeds from a lack of proper courtesy (sūʾ adab), the best excuse for which would be to say that it issued from him while he was in a state of being overwhelmed [by ecstasy]." But the truth in this matter—God knows best—is that Abraham, peace be upon him, saw in the dream that he was engaged in performing the slaughter, meaning that he laid his son down, took the knife, and passed it over his throat to cut it, but the cutting did not occur; and this is what is meant by his saying:

Bālī Zāde

﴿لا يشعر﴾

أن الذبح الذي أتى به عند قصده ذبح ابنه وهو تعبير رؤياه فقال :"وفديناه بذبح عظيم "

that the slaughter which he carried out, when he intended to slaughter his son, was the interpretation of his vision; so He said: "And We ransomed him with a tremendous sacrifice"

al-Qayṣarī

﴿فالتجلي الصوري في حضرة الخيال يحتاج إلى علم آخر، يدرك به ما أراد الله بتلك الصورة﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

ولا يحصل علمه إلا بانكشاف رقائق الأسماء الإلهية والمناسبات التي بين الأسماء المتعلقة بالباطن، وبين الأسماء التي تحت حيطة الظاهر. لأن الحق إنما يهب المعاني صورا بحكم المناسبة الواقعة بينهما - لا جزافا كما يظن المحجوبون أن الخيال يخلق تلك الصور جزافا - فلا يعبرون ويسمونه (أضغاث أحلام). بل المصور هو الحق من وراء حجابية الخيال. ولا يصدر منه ما يخالف الحكمة. فمن عرف المناسبات التي بين الصور ومعانيها وعرف مراتب النفوس التي تظهر الصور في حضرة خيالاتهم بحسبها، يعلم علم التعبير كما ينبغي، ولذلك تختلف أحكام الصورة الواحدة بالنسبة إلى أشخاص مختلفة المراتب. وهذا الانكشاف لا يحصل إلا بالتجلي الإلهي من حضرة الاسم الجامع بين الظاهر والباطن. قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه : (ألا ترى كيف قال رسول الله، عليه السلام، لأبي بكر في تعبيره الرؤيا

and knowledge of it is only attained through the unveiling of the subtle realities (raqāʾiq) of the Divine Names and the relations (munāsabāt) between the Names pertaining to the nonmanifest (bāṭin) and the Names that fall under the dominion of the manifest (ẓāhir). For the Real only bestows forms upon meanings in accordance with the correspondence obtaining between them—not haphazardly, as those who are veiled imagine, supposing that imagination creates these forms arbitrarily, so they do not interpret them and call them merely 'confused dreams' (aḍghāth aḥlām). Rather, the One who gives form is the Real, from behind the veil of imagination, and nothing proceeds from Him contrary to wisdom. So whoever knows the correspondences between forms and their meanings, and knows the ranks of souls in whose presence of imagination the forms appear according to their rank, knows the science of interpretation as it ought to be known. For this reason the rulings of a single form differ with respect to persons of differing ranks. And this unveiling is only attained through Divine self-disclosure from the presence of the All-Comprehensive Name uniting the manifest and the nonmanifest. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said: 'Do you not see how the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said to Abū Bakr regarding his interpretation of a dream,

Ibn Turka

﴿فالتجلَّي الصوريّ في حضرة الخيال محتاج إلى علم آخر يدرك به ما أراد الله تعالى بتلك الصورة﴾

وهو ممّا يختصّ بنيله أولو النهاية ، ممن غلب في مواطن معرفته ومواقف نبوّته وبعثته ، علم الصور وأحكام تجلَّياتها ، ولم يحتجب بكمال قربته وجمعيّته عن أحكام التفرقة والتفصيل. فلا بدّ وأن يكون صاحب حظَّ من الختم مّا بحسب الصورة فقط كيوسف على ما نبّهت عليه في تحقيق ترتيب الكتاب وبيان الحصر أو بحسب الصورة والمعنى ، كالحضرة الجمعيّة الختميّة وإلى ذلك أشار بقوله : تعبير أبي بكر لرؤيا الرجل

and this is something whose attainment is reserved for those possessing finality (ahl al-nihāya)—those in whom, at the stations of their knowledge and the standpoints of their prophethood and mission, the knowledge of forms and the rulings governing their self-disclosures predominates, and who are not veiled, by the perfection of their nearness and all-comprehensiveness, from the rulings of differentiation and detail. Hence one must needs possess some share of the Seal, whether with respect to form alone—like Joseph, as I pointed out in establishing the order of the Book and clarifying the restriction—or with respect to both form and meaning together, as with the all-comprehensive Seal-presence. To this he alluded in his saying: Abū Bakr's Interpretation of the Man's Vision

Jāmī

﴿والتجلي الصوري في حضرة الخيال … يحتاج إلى علم آخر﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

يسمى علم التعبير

called the science of [dream-]interpretation (ʿilm al-taʿbīr)

Bālī Zāde

﴿فالتجلي الصوري في حضرة الخيال محتاج إلى علم آخر﴾

وهو العلم الحامل من التجلي الإلهي

namely the knowledge that is receptive of the divine self-disclosure

Jāmī

﴿يدرك به ما أراد الله تعالی بتلك الصورة﴾

Quotes words that differ from our text (wavy underline).

الظاهرة في حضرة الخيال بادائه، وهو معرفة المناسبات التي بين الصور ومعانيها، ومعرفة مرآة النفوس التي تظهر تلك الصور في خيالاتهم، ومعرفة الأزمنة والأمكنة و غيرها مما له مدخل في التعبير، فإنه قد ينقلب حكم الصورة الواحدة بالنسبة إلى أشخاص مختلفة المراتب بل بالنسبة إلى شخص واحد في زمانین و مكانین . وبكمال هذه المعرفة ونقصانها يتفاوت حال المعبرين في الإصابة والخطأ في التعبير قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

manifest in the presence of imagination, through its [correct] rendering (adāʾ)—and that is the knowledge of the correspondences (munāsabāt) between forms and their meanings, and the knowledge of the mirror of souls in whose imaginations those forms appear, and the knowledge of times and places and other factors that bear upon [correct] interpretation. For the ruling of a single form may be reversed with respect to different individuals of differing ranks, or even with respect to a single individual at two different times and two different places. And according to the completeness or deficiency of this knowledge, the state of interpreters varies between correctness and error in interpretation. The Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said:

Bālī Zāde

﴿يدرك به ما أراد الله بتلك الصورة﴾

واستدل على ذلك بحديث الرسول عليه السلام فقال قال الشيخ رضي الله عنه

and he adduced as evidence for this the Hadith of the Messenger, peace be upon him, saying—the Shaykh, may God be pleased with him, said:

Sources: where each commentator's text comes from
ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Qāshānī (d. 730/1330), Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0730CabdRazzaqKashani.SharhFususHikam.IAC00084-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/qashani.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-Jandī (d. c. 691/1291), Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0691MuayyadDinJanadi.SharhCalaFususHikam.IAC00080-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/jandi.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

Dāwūd al-Qayṣarī (d. 751/1350), Maṭlaʿ khuṣūṣ al-kilam fī maʿānī Fuṣūṣ al-ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0751DawudQaysari.MatlacKhususKalam.IAC00085-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/qaysari.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

ʿAfīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī (d. 690/1291), Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0690CafifTilimsani.SharhFususHikam.IAC00081-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/tilmasani.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

Ṣāʾin al-Dīn Ibn Turka (d. 835/1432), Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0835SainDinTaraka.SharhFususHikam.IAC00087-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/taraka.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

Nūr al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī (d. 898/1492), Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0898NurDinJami.SharhMatnFususHikam.IAC00088-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/jami_matn.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

Muṣṭafā b. Sulaymān Bālī Zāde (d. 1073/1663), Sharḥ Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 1073MustafaSulaymanBaliZadah.SharhFususHikam.IAC00082-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/bali.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

Ṣadr al-Dīn al-Qūnawī (d. 673/1274), al-Fukūk fī asrār mustanadāt ḥikam al-Fuṣūṣ

Digital text: OpenITI barzakh, 0673AbuMacaliQunawi.Fukuk.IAC00079-ara1 (commit 6b19bdc)

Print edition behind it: Not recorded by OpenITI: the barzakh file has no .yml metadata record, and the ibnalarabi.com page it was taken from names no printed edition.

Taken from: ibnalarabi.com/fusus/qunawi.php. The OpenITI file's own header (#META# source) names this page: the text was copied from the Ibn ʿArabī website directed by Dr Mohamed Ali Haj Yousef. Every IAC-coded file used here names a page of that site in its header; barzakh is OpenITI's repository for texts awaiting integration into the corpus.

Licence: OpenITI distributes its texts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0; ibnalarabi.com states © 1999–2024. The commentary itself is a classical work in the public domain; the edition behind the digital text is unidentified.

The ibnalarabi.com texts sometimes print other hands inside a commentary: Bālī Zāde's glosses inside al-Qāshānī («إضافة بالي زادة»), and notes by the modern editor (al-muḥaqqiq) or compiler (al-jāmiʿ). We cut these out of the commentator's own text and show them as separate entries, each labelled with its author and the line of the file it came from.

Arabic of the commentaries from the OpenITI digital texts (each comment links to its line); Bosnevî's Ottoman Turkish from our collation of two OCRs of the 1873 Istanbul print (each comment links to its page scan at HathiTrust); passages matched to the commentators' quotations automatically.English translations of the commentaries and of the passage are AI (Claude) and marked. Differences are computed by comparing the words each commentator quotes with our working text; they may reflect a different manuscript reading, a paraphrase, or an alignment error. About this text.